News
Email
Print
Burr: Visit with McCain not political
The two senators and their wives spent time together recently as friends, he says
Journal Photo by David Rolfe
Sen. Richard Burr talks with supporters in Lewisville after the Memorial Day ceremonies.
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: May 27, 2008
U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., was in Lewisville yesterday as part of the town's Memorial Day ceremony and spoke to the Winston-Salem Journal after the ceremony.
He discussed the war in Iraq and the high cost of gas. He also discussed speculation about a running mate for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, who met over the weekend with a group of Republicans. Burr has been mentioned before as a potential running mate.
Q. There was a barbecue out in Arizona over the weekend. Did you get an invitation to that?
A. I was in Arizona with my wife six weeks ago with Sen. McCain and (McCain's wife) Cindy, and we had an excellent weekend. It didn't have anything to do with politics -- it had everything to do with friendships, and I'm sure that's what they were doing this weekend.
Q. So you don't think that it was per se about the vice presidency?
A. No. I think the vice-presidency process will be much more entailed than a weekend get-together, and clearly will happen under the radar screen and it won't be anything as visual as a trip to Arizona.… I think Sen. McCain has tried to reach out to people who really have made a difference in the first half of this election, to try to include them in a more private setting.… I think his getaway in Arizona is such a place.
Q. What can you as a senator do about the cost of energy?
A. We proposed an energy blueprint two weeks ago in the United States Senate that the majority killed.… The only calculation one can make is that it is more advantageous to some in the November election to have gas at $4 a gallon than it is to relieve the pressure on the American people. I believe we should have a vote on an energy policy every week from now until Nov. 4.
Q. When you agreed to support the war five years ago … were you thinking about what the cost of the war would be?
A. When we look at the financial commitment and we compare it to the effects of 9/11, you find that even now -- five years later -- I'm not sure we're up to the same total of the direct and indirect costs that 9/11 cost.… The direct costs are obvious in the lives that were affected, the lives that were lost, the buildings that were brought down, the airplanes that were destroyed, the disruption to the U.S. and the world economy. The indirect costs were the freeze on tourism that we saw, the capital losses of individuals when the stock market tanked, certainly reaching into trillions of dollars. Hopefully the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan deter that from happening again.
Q. How do you define what is a "reasonable time" to end the war?
A. If one could extrapolate the progress that we've made over the last six months, and say with certainty we could make that continued degree of progress over the next six months, you could have a drastic reduction by the end of the year in U.S. forces on the front lines of this conflict.
I think it still means that for several years your contingency of U.S. forces within the region might have to stay at a similar size as to where it is today.
Q. How has your view of the war changed in the last five years?
A. I guess the most obvious thing is our commanders in-country didn't recognize the need to change strategies early enough…. There were things we did early on that were decisions I was fully supportive of, like abolishing the Iraqi intelligence unit, disarming the Iraqi Army; in hindsight these were very stupid things to have done. At the time they seemed the right thing to do. But I think it's safe to say it probably prolonged the challenges that we would have.
Q. Anything else you would have done differently?
A. I would have probably suggested that this was as much about removing a dictator who had a record of genocide as much as a safe harbor that existed in Iraq for terrorists…. Genocide can't continue no matter where it is in the world.
Q. Obviously support for the war has been wavering for some time. Do you ever get frustrated that the case for the on-going war isn't being made?
A. It would trouble me if the American people liked war. The fact that they're uncomfortable with this is confidence to me that the American people through their leadership would prefer to have stability and peace. I also believe that the American people know why this is so important, and though they might disagree with decisions that are made at certain times, that if we leave victorious from Iraq, the American people will acknowledge the success of our troops, but more importantly will have a much brighter future.
■ Paul Garber can be reached at 727-7327 or at pgarber@wsjournal.com.
Email
Print
ADVERTISEMENT
N.C. Politics
Federal Politics
See community events or add your own! Click here!
Advertisement
